Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

111KAB

Jadeybaby21 wrote: »

In their defence the claim they were able to source another aircraft to undertake the flight and could not have reasonably done anymore. And in the witness statement they claim the availability of sub charters from other air carriers as well as regulatory and financial factors were all considered. Is this enough to prove they did everything possible to deploy all of their resources in terms of staff, equipment or financial means at it's disposal even though there was still a delay of 6 hours?

I will let Vauban reply to the bulk of your queries however in respect of TC obtaining a replacement plane from either their own fleet or by wet leasing from another airline you should ask for written proof as to when they undertook this action.


Did they actually do this or is this a figment of their imagination? If they did it did they action the minute it became apparent there was a technical problem with 'your' plane?

Jadeybaby21

well shock shock horror, guess what arrived in my post this afternoon (and no, unfortunately its not a settlement!!) Its a court order for a stay pending the outcome of Jet2.com v Huzar!!

I knew this would happen so i don't know why I'm surprised. I'm just !!!!ed off its only a week to go and they've done it!! so the hearing next week has been vacated. I phoned to make sure I was clear on everything (even though I phoned up this am as Vauban kindly suggested to explain about the non extant piece of evidence, and the lady never mentioned about the stay!) the guy I spoke to didn't seem to have a clue but basically told me when I asked if there's anything I can do to appeal this decision that No I cannot, the decision has already been made and I will have to phone back up once a decision on the appeal has been made to get my hearing listed again.

I was getting all geared up for next week to!

Vauban

Never mind - it was always likely. Think of the interest ...

austin9658

mike0090 wrote: »

Hi guys I was delayed 4 hours on a flight to Orlando last year. I contacted tc about 4 weeks ago and this was the main part of their reply:
"We have carried out an investigation as to the cause of delay that you experienced and can confirm that this was due to a technical fault which was not inherent in the normal course of activity. A recent court case, Huzar vs Jet2, has been heard in the court of appeal, which has resulted in a change to how EC 261/2004 is interpreted, which is the regulation that supports governance on compensation payments for flight delays. The decision of this case is due to be appealed at the Supreme Court by Jet2.com in the near future, which may result in a further change to the interpretation of regulations."

I assume they are saying I am not eligible for compensation due to technical fault however this seems pretty vague to say the least. Is there any way of gathering further evidence re the actual cause of the delay or do I have to just take their word for it?

Either you are eligible for delayed compensation or not it will be decided after the final result on huzar case. He will finally open the floodgate. you have to wait until that.

Bonking_Mad

We we're delayed yesterday (Sunday) for 2 hours returning from Reus to BHX, reason for delay, no pilot at BHX, outbound flight had to wait for relief pilot to arrive from Manchester, just curious, do we have a claim?

Vauban

Not for 2 hours, no.

austin9658

Bonking_Mad wrote: »

We we're delayed yesterday (Sunday) for 2 hours returning from Reus to BHX, reason for delay, no pilot at BHX, outbound flight had to wait for relief pilot to arrive from Manchester, just curious, do we have a claim?

Sorry to say but there is no rules under EU regulation to get claim on delayed flight that was delayed less than 3 hours. You may have a read FAQs of this site.

purple_icecream

Jadeybaby21 wrote: »

well shock shock horror, guess what arrived in my post this afternoon (and no, unfortunately its not a settlement!!) Its a court order for a stay pending the outcome of Jet2.com v Huzar!!

I knew this would happen so i don't know why I'm surprised. I'm just !!!!ed off its only a week to go and they've done it!! so the hearing next week has been vacated.

You were lucky, after slaving away getting my papers ready, getting prepared to go to court, driving there etc, being sent away over the lunch break and spending 3 hours waiting to go in - after 15 mins the judge stayed.

Plus you were saying some of the defendants statements were missing - I received the ones from TC at 6pm by email the night before my hearing :mad:

bigdogg

After my last post which was for some advice about my case being moved from the South to Manchester. I asked as the litigant in person and the claimant for the the case to remain at my local court. I was bombed out and it has been moved up North some 250 miles from me.

Nevermind as I got a letter from the court to say that the judge had reviewed the case and it has been stayed.

However this week I have received a letter from Thomas Cook to say that since the case will probably be stayed can I agree to them changing there defence to Weightman's Solicitors instead of them defending. Is this standard and should I accept the change or reject in and keep the staus quo with them defending?

Many Thanks

111KAB

bigdogg wrote: »

After my last post which was for some advice about my case being moved from the South to Manchester. I asked as the litigant in person and the claimant for the the case to remain at my local court. I was bombed out and it has been moved up North some 250 miles from me.

Nevermind as I got a letter from the court to say that the judge had reviewed the case and it has been stayed.

However this week I have received a letter from Thomas Cook to say that since the case will probably be stayed can I agree to them changing there defence to Weightman's Solicitors instead of them defending. Is this standard and should I accept the change or reject in and keep the staus quo with them defending?

Many Thanks

I would do whatever causes them the most hardship and cost!